The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10089 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMED GHOUSE, SON OF MOHAMMED FAIZ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, PENSION MOHALLA, HILAYI NAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. (BY SRI. IAN LEWIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. MR. SYED NADEEM, SON OF SYED ANSAR, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT CHIPPINAKATTE, WARD NO.21, BEHIND OLD MUTTON MARKET, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. SYED NEIMAN, MAJOR IN AGE, SON OF SYED RIYAZ, BEHIND DAVOODH SAWMILL, PENSION MOHALLA, HASSAN - 573 201. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT 3. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, CHANDANA COMPLEX, HARSHAMAHAL ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201. (BY SRI. ABHISHEK M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1577/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the dismissal of M.V.C. No.1577/2014 dated 08.02.2016 passed by the III Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T at Hassan, the claimant is before this Court. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that took place on 26.05.2014. 2. The facts of the case are that on 26.05.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., in front of Sony Sticker Cutting Shop of old mutton market, Hassan, the claimant was proceeding towards chicken centre, while crossing the road, the rider of the bike bearing No.KA-13 EC-3221 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. In the result, he had sustained injuries and he was admitted to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 Janapriya Hospital, Hassan, where it was found the fracture of right tibia and fibula. He has undergone the surgical operation and spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expense. The Insurance Company has filed their objections and they have denied the accident and that rider of the motorbike is not possessing valid and effective driving license. The Tribunal had framed three issues. With regard to issue No.1 i.e., whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident dated 26.05.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., the Tribunal had negatived the same. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is that to prove the case of the claimant he has adduced the evidence by filing the affidavit and he got marked the documents viz., Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the copy of the charge sheet, Ex.P4 is the copy of the spot mahazer, Ex.P5 is the copy of the seizure mahazer, Ex.P6 is the wound certificate, Ex.P7 is the copy of the IMV report, Ex.P8 is the police intimation and Ex.P9 is the O.P.Slip. The Tribunal observed that the claimant in his cross- examination admitted that immediately he was admitted to Government Hospital, Hassan, but he denied regarding giving any statement that he has fallen from height. P.W.2 is the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 Medical officer who has given treatment by conducting surgery at Janapriya Hospital, Hassan. P.W.3 deposed that as if he witnessed the accident caused by the rider of the bike on 26.05.2014 and P.W.1 and P.W.3 are denied the suggestion as if the claimant sustained injury due to fall from height. The Tribunal comes to the finding that as per Ex.R4, it is fall from the height, but not road traffic accident and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition and no findings are given on other issues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submits that the Tribunal had completely ignored Ex.P9 which clearly shows that the claimant had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. It is submitted that Ex.R4 is not the MLC extract, but the Tribunal termed it as MLC extract and without considering PW.9, had given more prudence to Exs.R1 to 4 and Medical Officer, who has treated was also examined. Even his evidence was not considered. It is submitted that Ex.R4 is contrary to Ex.P9 and there are clear lapses on the part of the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence both oral as well as the documentary evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal, considering Ex.R4 which shows that it is the fall from height, had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. According to the Insurance Company, as per Ex.R4, the claimant had sustained injuries as he has fall from a height. According to the claimant, basing on Ex.P9, he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. When the Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.P9 and in the light of the evidence of the Medical Officer and also Exs.R1 and R4, it appears from the entire order that the Tribunal had given more prudence to Exs.R1 to R4 and Ex.P9 is not considered. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018
Decision
ORDER i) The judgment and award dated 08.02.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.1577/2014 by the III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan, is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. ii) This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter only aspect is that there is no discussion about Ex.P9 and evidence of Medical Officer. iii) Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of Ex.P9 and Exs.R1 to R4. Basing on the evidence that is let in, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders. iv) Without further notice, both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.04.2025 and within six months from thereon, the Tribunal shall decide the case and pass an appropriate orders. v) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. vi) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11822 MFA No. 10089 of 2018 v. No Costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK